AN INSIDE LOOK - Commentary and opinions on local politics and life in general in Southeastern Massachusetts! Featuring the writings of Bill Gouveia, newspaper columnist for the Sun Chronicle and local cable TV talk show host. Feel free to read, comment and enjoy!

Monday, December 18, 2017

There is a problem in local government. Not enough women hold public office and other positions of authority in local municipalities. The question is — why?

There are nine towns with boards of selectmen in the Sun Chronicle area. My rough count shows 41 selectmen seats between those nine towns. A check of town web sites reveals 37 of those 41 seats are currently filled by men. Five towns (Norfolk, Mansfield, North Attleboro, Plainville and Wrentham) currently have no female selectmen. The other four (Seekonk, Norton, Rehoboth and Foxboro) each have one.

Men currently occupy 89 percent of local selectmen seats, while women hold just 11 percent. No community in the Sun Chronicle area currently has more than one female member of their board of selectmen.

If you aren’t at least somewhat concerned by those glaring statistics, then congratulations — you are officially part of the problem.

There are many reasons for this phenomenon. They run from the undeniable and clear presence of discrimination against women that has been built into the very structure of our society and government for many generations, to the lack of interest by many women in changing that on the local level.

To be fair, there have been many women selectmen of distinction in this area over the years. Andrea Soucy of Plainville served for 27 years. Other communities have had several women who were powerful voices on their local boards.

But 37-4? Can that realistically be viewed as anything but a problem and a warning sign? Or is local government in general, and being a selectman in particular, just “a guy thing”?

Let’s get one thing clear right away: Women have to bear some major responsibility for this great disparity. You can’t be elected to a board of selectmen unless you run for it, and locally — not enough women run. It’s not like the voters are defeating women at the polls. The percentage of women who run and are elected is probably reasonably high.

But far more men than women seek the office. Some say that is because women are not as egotistical as men and don’t need the power and the affirmation of office. Others believe it is because women are simply smarter than men and don’t want the aggravation and stress of trying to please an entire community.

And no doubt there are still some (hopefully a rapidly diminishing number) who just think women aren’t “cut out” for this sort of thing. The are much better at working than leading, or so many who subscribe to that misguided philosophy believe. Their strength is in the home, not in the town hall.

They must know different women than the ones I know.

As someone who has been involved in local government for more than 40 years, I can tell you with absolute certainty that women are a dominant force in our local communities and local governments. Almost every local citizen group formed for a political purpose (to support ballot questions, candidates, or overrides) is led at least in part by women. There are many capable men involved as well, but I guarantee you the ratio in the leadership is not 34-7.

Of course, it is also fair to ask why women would seek to become a selectMAN. This newspaper recently ran a story about the attitudes of some local leaders toward possibly changing the title to “select person” and “select board”. While many of the comments were encouraging, a few were disappointing.

Chief among them was this from Foxboro selectman chairman David Feldman: “I am not sure where we as a society are going when we start changing names or stop using words that have been generally accepted for hundreds of years for their intended meaning vs. literal meaning.”

Really, Mr. Feldman? The origin of the word “selectman” is pretty simple to determine. These were “select men” chosen to lead during a time when only men were allowed or considered capable.

Perhaps it is this kind of reluctance and lack of enthusiasm for change that keeps women from seeking their town’s highest office. Here’s hoping 2018 brings many more women candidates for our local boards of selectpeople. And perhaps a change in the attitudes of some of their male counterparts.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime local official. He can be reached at billsinsidelook@gmail.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Friday, December 1, 2017

When local radio host Dave Kane invited me to the former Brennan Middle School on County Street In Attleboro to observe the operation of the “Christmas Is For Kids” drop-off center, I sort of sighed to myself.

I’ve participated in various holiday gift drives in local communities over the years. All of them have been meaningful experiences, but — well, been there, done that. However, this was not your typical community Christmas drive.

I soon found myself in the midst of a highly organized, intensely motivated operation. The sheer scale of what they do and the selfless way they do it is amazing.

The Greater Attleboro Area Council for Children is a non-profit corporation made up entirely of volunteers. They run Christmas Is For Kids, which works with several state and local agencies to provide Christmas gifts to over a thousand kids in Attleboro, North Attleboro, Mansfield, Norton, Seekonk and Rehoboth.

Every family has its eligibility checked according to the established guidelines. There is a complete assessment of their needs, rather than a random distribution of generic gifts. Kids are asked what they want, as well as what they need, because every child deserves to have a Christmas dream come true. Often that is merely the clothes, shoes, and other staples their parent(s) can’t provide.

They seek not just donors, but givers. When you help this organization, you virtually adopt a child. You get the specifications of what these kids both want and need, and then go out and buy it. They give you the size, color, type and other necessary information. But you actually pick out the gift for the child you don’t even know, which is very special.

Monetary donations are also accepted, as are new toys or gifts for children. If you are thinking that must require a lot of detailed work, you are right.

I met Kelly Fox, who heads the effort. She provided an overview of the way the organization operates. From the paperwork and spreadsheets handled by a group of focused individuals — using their own personal laptops and supplies in most cases — to the people sorting toys and clothes in converted classrooms, they made the entire process look easy.

Every child — assigned a number to maintain anonymity — has a “bag” containing gifts set up in an orderly fashion. Eventually, under the supervision of the state agencies, they are handed to the families. Those are the greatest moments for these worker “elves” who give of their time and themselves every year.

As my jaw dropped in amazement at the scope of their operation, I managed to ask Kelly a simple question: Why do you do this?

She smiled, thought for a moment, then replied, “This is our Christmas. It’s what our family does. We say we do it for the kids, but we get as much out of it as they do.”

The stories had me in tears. The 11-year-old who asked for a mattress, having never slept on a real bed before. The 16-year-old who was embarrassed because he had to wear the same pair of pants to school every day.

And their praise of the donors was effusive. The local companies who generously contribute, the families that “adopt” kids, and even the anonymous strangers who drop off thoughtful gifts. Like the unidentified man who donated a “date kit” designated for a teenager. It contained gift cards for the movies, dinner, new clothes – all so a kid who couldn’t otherwise afford it could go on a date.

I spent pretty much my entire tour in tearful amazement. I encourage and even dare the toughest of you to visit and keep a dry eye. It opened up a new perspective for me because — I had no idea.

Thank you to Kelly, Dave, and each and every “elf”. The difference you unquestionably make goes beyond merely Christmas, and involves instilling in people the sense of self-worth every individual so desperately needs. You represent the best in all of us, and what you do for these children and families cannot be overstated.

Merry Christmas to you all.

(To donate to Christmas is for Kids or for information call 508-226-0911 Monday-Friday from 5 pm-8 pm and Saturday from 9 am-5 pm.)

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime local official. He can be reached at billsinsidelook@gmail.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

In the topsy-turvy, crazy political environment that exists at virtually every level of government today, almost nothing is unusual. No one is quite sure just what the new “normal” is, but if this is it — good luck to us all.

And don’t think it is completely the fault of our elected officials, be they national, state or local. We voters and citizens have to take equal responsibility (or blame, depending on your point of view) for what is an absolutely impossible to predict world.

All of which leads to the topic of today’s discussion: Seekonk and the big green gun.

Back in July, Seekonk selectmen accepted a vintage howitzer from the Massachusetts National Guard. For those unfamiliar, that is an artillery gun used in wars long ago.

Naturally, it is non-functioning and intended to serve as a memorial and reminder of the sacrifice made by those who fought valiantly for our country all over the globe.

Having such obsolete weapons as monuments in a community is not unusual.

In my hometown of Norton, we have one such retired weapon. It is located along East Main Street on a small plot of land designated to honor our veterans. It sits between Wheaton College and the Trinitarian Congregational Church. To the best of my knowledge, it has never generated any type of controversy.

But in Seekonk, their “Weapon of Mass Confusion” has been a source of contention, irritation and argument almost since it arrived. The reasons for this are varied, but the controversy has now pretty much reached a level of absurdity usually reserved for overrides and leash laws.

It all started when the Guard “loaned” the howitzer to the town, and selectmen placed it on the Veterans Park Land. This spot is located next to the town library, and the library’s board of trustees serves as custodians of the park.

Believing there would be no problem, selectmen were somewhat surprised when the library board objected and claimed “established town regulations” had been ignored. They questioned their liability should someone climb on it, fall off and be injured.

Additionally, some residents complained about the “gift”. One selectman reported he was told some neighbors were frightened by the inactive weapon. A concerned resident called it “a symbol of death and destruction and violence” and another said it interfered with the Veterans Memorial being “a peaceful place.” Other residents saw no problem with it, and wanted it left at the memorial.

So for the last few months, the selectmen and others have been treating the gun like it was made of uranium. There has been talk of finding the “right place” to put it – like somehow a spot that honors veterans is innately inappropriate. It has come up at multiple meetings and there is still no final decision.

But in what is somehow a fitting next step, the beleaguered board of selectmen has decided to defer the question. They voted 4-1 last week to place a referendum on the April town ballot asking voters if the howitzer should stay at the park or be moved elsewhere.

So to review briefly – the school budget is not voted upon at the ballot box. Neither are the police or fire budgets. Decisions to buy or sell land are not decided at the polls, nor are major zoning changes or bylaw alterations.

But whether or not to move the big green gun will be on the ballot.

This is not meant in any way to denigrate or disrespect the legitimate concerns of any individual, or tell people how they should honor their veterans. Each community does it their own way.

But Selectman Chairman David Andrade was right when he said “We (selectmen) were elected for a reason and it’s to make choices and to make decisions.” And frankly, if they can’t make this one, how are they going to decide on the really difficult issues? Talk about passing the buck.

If it helps, I’ve never heard of anyone falling off the big gun in Norton. Coincidentally, it is right across the street from the town library. Almost every Veterans Day parade stops at it. And the “weapon” has never been voted off the island.

It’s now official. We are running out of things to worry about.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime local official. He can be reached at billsinsidelook@gmail.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

This Thursday is Thanksgiving, and it is my favorite holiday. I’m sure that is in part because I wind up with a four-day weekend, but it goes well beyond that.

Thanksgiving is one of the few truly American holidays, a moment when most of the country pauses and comes together to celebrate. There are virtually no controversial Thanksgivings. No one questions what day it should fall on, or who is marching in the parades, or whether or not we are observing it the “right way”. It’s just a time for family, food and football.

Sure, there are the valid points concerning the treatment of Native Americans, both now and centuries before. You can always find those willing and eager to tell you the original Thanksgiving was not a joyous coming together of two cultures trying to respect and love one another.

But in general, Thanksgiving in this day and age is America’s national day off, the one time of the year we tend to stop arguing with both friends and foes and concentrate on what brings us together. It is not a solemn time, or really even a reflective one. It’s just a chance to be with family and appreciate having that tremendous opportunity.

On Thanksgiving we tend to be more tolerant of crazy old Uncle Louie. His Facebook rants that border on racist and sexist are temporarily set aside, and he plays with the grandchildren and tells stories of the old days. We also back off of militant college student Mary, who takes a break from railing against the establishment and the unfairness of everything long enough to have some turkey (with no antibiotics and not raised in cages) and share some laughs.

With all due respect to religion, Thanksgiving doesn’t involve going to church or having to perform those types of rituals and ceremonies. Not that there is anything wrong with rituals and ceremonies. It’s just nice to be celebrating and giving thanks for little more than each other, at least for one day.

To be sure, Thanksgiving does indeed have rituals. High school football games on Thanksgiving are a long-standing tradition in many local communities. Getting up and going to the contests, usually to play your local arch-rival for some mythical championship, is something everyone should experience.

In my house, woe to the poor soul who scoops the Ocean Spray jellied cranberry sauce out of the can rather than removing it completely from one end and slicing it into wafers. My daughter-in-law MJ discovered that on her first Thanksgiving with us, and the poor thing has never completely recovered from the wrath rained down upon her. But since she controls three of the grandchildren – and we love her – all was forgiven.

My late mother had many duties during family Thanksgiving celebrations years ago. Chief among them was making the gravy. Everyone loved it.

Then one year she burned the gravy. It tasted terrible. She was upset, and we took full advantage.

For the rest of her years with us, we joked at Thanksgiving about my mother burning the gravy. “Grandma, we think your gravy is on fire!” my sons would tease her. “Hey Mom, I think the smoke detector is going off. Are you making the gravy?” I would ask in front of everyone. We did it for every single Thanksgiving, and now that she is gone – we still joke about it and how she pretended to be irritated, but actually loved it.

This Thanksgiving my sister-in-law Valerie will probably make her Swedish bread, my sister-in-law Darleen will make her world famous deviled eggs and my wife will make her amazing apple twists for dessert.

Often we have had special guests on Thanksgiving. Church friends with no place else to go, members of special group homes my late sister befriended when she worked there and friends of our kids who were away from home for school or other reasons.

These are the things that make this holiday special. They are the memories that will live beyond me and into future family Thanksgiving gatherings. Decades from now I may be gone, but the smell of my mom’s burnt gravy will no doubt still be discussed at Turkey Day dinners.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime local official. He can be reached at billinsidelook@gmail.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Monday, November 13, 2017

Yep — it’s another column about gun control, or the national lack of same. I’m warning those who don’t want to read any more about the need to stop people from possessing military-style weapons that kill hundreds in just seconds – stop now. Because I’m not going to stop until we start to actually do something.

There’s been another mass shooting. In a church. By a former Air Force member who was dishonorably discharged after spending time in military jail for domestic violence against his wife and children. Who, after that, was still able to “legally” buy several dangerous guns because the current flawed system failed us all once again.

You know, that system that we don’t need to improve. The one that is a waste of time. We can’t work on making it better, making it stronger, because “it’s not time to talk about gun control right now.”

Such pure, unadulterated crap. Such absolute cowardice in the face of real danger. Such negligent disregard for the lives of all of us. And so very, very wrong.

Now. Now is the time to talk about common sense gun control. Right now. Not tomorrow, not after the mid-term elections, not at the beginning of the next Congress. Now – as quickly and seriously as we can, before more innocent lives are lost simply because of politics and the “tough guy/girl image” we like to put forth.

We have more guns in this country than any other nation. Yet we act like it is some kind of coincidence we also have one of the highest gun-related murder rates on the planet. We register almost every car in this country, and require people to pass tests before allowing them to drive. Yet for some unthinkably stupid reason, we fail to keep as close an eye on weapons that have made us the “Mass Murder By Gun” capital of the world.

If we can’t talk about gun control now, when the hell can we talk about it? We didn’t get any major improvements in the law after school children were shot down in Sandy Hook. If the shooting of small children in Connecticut and Texas, in schools and churches, isn’t enough to have that discussion — what will be?

If the shooting of some 500 people at a Las Vegas concert, near a natural gas facility, wasn’t enough to start the debate on gun control, I guess it is easy to understand why this also would not be. But it still doesn’t answer the question – when will it be time?

Our President was outraged when football players quietly knelt during the national anthem. He called them names, he wanted them fired, he threatened the league that employs them.

But after yet another mass shooting, on the heels of the Las Vegas murders, he insists once again it is “too early” to discuss gun control. He points out — quite correctly — that a lawful gun owner helped stop the Texas killings from being an even bigger tragedy.

But the heroic actions of that individual do not change the obvious need to better regulate dangerous weapons, and provide better nationwide screening of those buying guns. The killer in Texas had a criminal record in the military, and a history of mental illness. Yet the military failed to report it. He was apparently prevented from buying a gun in one state, but merely had to go to another and use one of the loopholes our lawmakers refuse to close.

Why in the world would we not want to stop him and others from gaining access to these weapons? What is wrong with us as a people? Is our country seriously more upset about football players and the national anthem than it is about keeping guns away from those who are unstable?

President Trump can’t talk credibly about “extreme vetting” until he applies it to those buying guns. Every legislator who avoids this topic is a disgrace and a coward.

Stop saying this isn’t about guns. We can work on mental health issues, we can strengthen law enforcement. But all that will fail unless and until we also stand up to the NRA and others, and do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and a longtime local official. He can be emailed at billsinsidelook@aol.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Friday, November 10, 2017

Congratulations are in order to Attleboro’s new Mayor-elect Paul Heroux. His convincing and solid victory over seven-term incumbent Kevin Dumas was set up by his intense campaigning, a solid record as state representative, and his earning the trust of the voters.

But less than 24 hours after being elected, Heroux found himself in a political controversy of his own making. While he claims to be surprised it has made headlines, it is obvious he knew or should have known this issue deserved public comment during the campaign.

Just hours after his victory, Heroux casually let it drop — arguably for the first time in public — that he intended to keep his state representative seat even after taking office as mayor. He did not initially put it that way, preferring to simply state he intended to stay long enough “to try and finish my projects” on Beacon Hill. To add to the confusion, he later said he might be able to wrap those up by the end of the year and resign just before he’s inaugurated.

But if Heroux indeed remains a member of the Legislature after being sworn in as mayor, several issues are raised. First and foremost is this simple one:

How can this self-proclaimed “full-time legislator” possibly give full effort to that job while simultaneously running the area’s largest city on a full-time basis?

Heroux has an unquestioned work ethic. He has been a tireless advocate for his district, and while doing that still managed to run one of the most vigorous campaigns in city history. He cites this as evidence he could more than adequately perform both tasks, particularly in the short-term.

He points out if he resigned upon becoming mayor, the district would be without representation for many months. There would most likely have to be a special election to fill his seat, which he says would cost taxpayers about $50,000.

He also claimed that having a special election in the next few months would be “unfair” to possible Democratic candidates. Heroux (a Democrat) says city councilor and Republican Julie Hall has been planning a run for his seat for a long time, and thus an accelerated election schedule would provide Republicans with an advantage over potential opponents.

Saving the city money is admirable, as is finishing important projects going on at the state level. The point about leaving Attleboro without a state rep for a period of months is concerning. But despite all that, Heroux should have talked about this sooner publicly, and he should resign from the Legislature as soon as he assumes the mayor’s office.

A claim by the mayor-elect that he didn’t talk publicly about staying in his current position because “no one asked me” is pretty lame. He says he was asked the question dozens of times while knocking on doors, and was always honest and upfront about his intentions. If he was asked it that often during campaigning, he had to realize it was an important point to clarify publicly.

Rep. Betty Poirier, R-North Attleboro, was correct in criticizing Heroux for not making a public announcement during the campaign about intending to hold both offices, however briefly. She called him “disingenuous” on this issue, and that may be kind. Heroux is a savvy politician and campaigner. The idea he is now surprised by this reaction is just not credible.

As for being fair to Democrats in any upcoming election — that is simply not Heroux’s job. He is the representative for all the people of his district, not just the Democrats. He should be protecting the district, not his party.

“I do not know of any Attleboro Dem who can beat Julie in a special election,” Heroux said. That may or may not be true, but it is a bad and partisan reason to delay the election and selection of a new representative.

Forget the fact Heroux would be collecting two public salaries for two full-time jobs at the same time. The real point is he chose to run for mayor, and city voters have the right to demand and expect his full attention and devotion to that job. His motives may be pure, but this would be a serious mistake.

It certainly is not how a new mayor should start a new, transparent, open and full-time administration.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime local official. He can be reached at billsinsidelook@gmail.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook

Friday, November 3, 2017

If you are going to demand honesty, openness, and respect from your fellow citizens and local government, you first have to display those qualities yourself.

That is a lesson apparently not yet learned by Ralph Stefanelli, a Norton political activist and town official. Stefanelli was recently cited by the state Office of Campaign & Political Finance (OCPF) for violating state campaign finance laws, misleading investigators, and attempting to obstruct a review of his activities surrounding the last Proposition 2 1/2 override in town.

But through his actions, Stefanelli did something arguably far worse than violating state campaign laws.

He abused the trust of a significant portion of the voters of Norton while cheapening and disrespecting the electoral process that is the heart of every local municipality.

Stefanelli has long been a vociferous voice against overrides in Norton. This past spring he campaigned vigorously and ably against the proposed tax increase, appearing on cable television and at multiple meetings and forums to aggressively criticize both the plan and its proponents.

However, he also engaged in purchasing campaign materials urging a “No” vote without either forming a ballot question committee or reporting his spending, as required by state law.

Questioned about it after the fact, Stefanelli gave conflicting stories. First he claimed he and others got together at a local coffee shop to discuss their joint opposition, stating they all “pitched in” money for the cause. Then when OCPF told him that required filing campaign finance forms, he changed the story to say they only “pitched in” to pay for coffee and meals. He refused to identify the other people.

He then claimed he personally spent only $230 on campaign flyers. When challenged on this by the OCPF, Stefanelli said the organization was wasting its time and that he was proud to have spent his own money to “beat the bastards”. He also stated if OCPF decided to issue a subpoena, he would “wipe my a— with it”.

However, Stefanelli’s tune and tone changed when OCPF discovered receipts proving he had actually spent $1,583 at Minuteman Press in Raynham for 6,500 postcards and 2,000 flyers seeking “No” votes. Confronted with the evidence proving his original story was false, he finally agreed to submit the financial disclosure documents.

One form filed by Stefanelli was 108 days late, the other 70 days. Michael J. Sullivan, director of the OCPF, wrote that existing law did not allow him to fine Stefanelli, but added “If I could, I would impose the $25 per day fine upon you for a total of $4,425.”

Director Sullivan’s letter to Stefanelli also said, “It is clear that your intent was to influence the election and not provide the voting public with any information as to who financed the opposition to the ballot question.”

Ralph Stefanelli went on TV in Norton this past spring and said that during overrides, the public “must demand accountability”. He said he wanted to bring the truth out, and “shine the light” on the darkness. He told the people of Norton they should demand the truth, because in his words, “Knowledge is power”. He told them “I am the spokesperson for voting No” on the override, and defended the work of the “people on my committee.”

But at the same time, Stefanelli hid the truth. He violated campaign laws, then attempted to cover up what he had done. He denied the existence of the committee he earlier claimed to lead. He appears, in many instances, to have had a tenuous and distant relationship with the truth.

Many concerned parents and citizens who he called “bastards” worked within the rules to try and pass the override. They did not hide. It is doubtful Stefanelli’s illegal actions affected the ultimate result of the election, but what he did was certainly wrong and unfair to everyone, including his supporters.

He owes the entire town an apology. Perhaps his original failure to follow the law was simply out of ignorance, but there can be no excusing his disgraceful attempts to cover them up and mislead investigators.

Stefanelli should serve as an example to all local political activists and officials that if you are going to “talk the talk”, you first need to “walk the walk”.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime local official. He can be reached at billsinsidelook@gmail.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook

Monday, October 23, 2017

GOUVEIA: Using the military

11 hrs ago

Let me say this as simply and as emphatically as I possibly can. And let there be no mistaking the emotion and sincerity of this simple and direct message:

Stop using our troops and fallen heroes to advance your political agendas. It is wrong, disrespectful, and disgusting. This applies to everyone, regardless of where your views may place you along the political spectrum.

Our armed forces are one of the crown jewels of this nation. The brave men and women who serve this country come from all races, religions, backgrounds and places. They signed up to protect us, and all they ask for in return is support, financial and otherwise. That doesn’t seem like a lot to ask, given the measure of devotion they contribute.

When we insert our fighting men and women into our political battles, we do not help them. We undermine the very real and important role they play in keeping this country free and safe. It is even less honest and more wrong than those who criticize soldiers and the military for their own purposes. At least they aren’t pretending.

Using our military men and women as political pawns has reached a sad peak in recent days. Starting with the national anthem controversy and concluding with the recent discussions over how Presidents notify the families of fallen soldiers. We are unfairly making military personnel the object of political bickering, rather than simply admiring and appreciating them for what they do.

When NFL players began kneeling during the anthem, it had nothing to do with soldiers or the military – absolutely nothing. The people doing it clearly said that. It is understandable that many did not see it the same way, but the undeniable truth is demonstrations like that were in no way aimed at our armed forces.

But President Trump and others found it convenient to make it appear they did. They made it about our military men and women. They lit a fire under the controversy and stuck those extraordinary people in the middle of a fight they did not deserve to be in. And most of them did it to earn a political advantage in totally unconnected battles.

Then came the issue of how Gold Star families are notified when their family members are killed. President Trump faced criticism when he took more than 12 days to personally communicate with the families of the four heroes who lost their lives in Niger. Then he faced even more criticism for what he allegedly said to one of the widows.

On top of that, President Trump felt it necessary to accuse previous presidents (from both parties) of not calling or reaching out to Gold Star families. That prompted an avalanche of political accusations, all while these poor families are still grieving.

This is just wrong – on all sides.

When our President is so egotistical as to have to use dead soldiers and their families in political issues, we have a serious problem. And when those so eager to discredit said President do exactly the same thing in reverse, they are just as bad.

These are emotional topics, and a lot of people are guilty of sometimes cashing in on one for reasons not directly connected. I know I have done it, and when I did – I was wrong. Maybe that’s a phrase both the President and some of his critics could try and learn: I was wrong.

The White House Chief of Staff got dragged into this, himself a Gold Star father. He wound up gratuitously insulting and inaccurately attacking a Congresswomen who had previously criticized the President for his remarks to a soldier’s family. Then the President kept the politics of the issue going via Twitter on the very day of Sgt. La David Johnson’s funeral.

The focus here should have been the tragic deaths of four American servicemen. Their names are Staff Sgt. Bryan Black, Sgt. La David Johnson, Staff Sgt. Dustin Wright and Staff Sgt. Jeremiah Johnson. They and their families deserve better than what their country has given them thus far.

Whether the criticism over the handling of this is legitimate or not, these men and their families have been dishonored. And that is very wrong.

Bill Gouveia is a local columnist and longtime local official. He can be reached at billsinsidelook@gmail.com and followed on Twitter at @Billinsidelook.

Remembering Baby Alex

Bill's Favorite Links

Followers

About Me

Bill Gouveia
Bill has been a newspaper columnist for the Sun Chronicle in Attleboro, MA for more than a decade, as well as former host of his own local cable talk show "An Inside Look" in his hometown of Norton, MA. Bill previously wrote columns for the Norton Mirror, Mansfield News and Easton Journal for about ten years, and Norton Patch as well, and is a former selectman in Norton. He is currently the elected Norton Town Moderator. His real-time job is as Vice President of Atlantic Stainless Co., Inc - a stainless steel distributorship in North Attleboro, MA. He and his wife Cynthia have been married for 40 years and have two sons, Aaron and Nathan. He is also the proud grandfather of William Gouveia, Avery Gouveia, Samuel Gouveia, Addison Gouveia and Thomas Gouveia.